On 2016 Apr 11, Hilda Bastian commented:

The strongly declarative title of this paper makes a claim that is not supported by its contents.

The authors argue that only one study (Galesic M, 2009) has reported "a substantial benefit" of natural frequencies. That claim is not based on an up-to-date systematic review of the studies on this question. A systematic review is needed, because there are multiple studies now with varying methods, in various populations, and in relevant contexts, that need to be considered in detail.

These authors cite some studies that support their position (all in the context of treatment decisions). However, this is only a part of the relevant evidence. Among the studies not cited in this paper, there is at least one looking at medical tests (Garcia-Retamero R, 2013), others at treatments (e.g. Cuite CL, 2008, Carling CL, 2009, Knapp P, 2009 and Sinayev A, 2015), and at least one in a different field (Hoffrage U, 2015). Some find in favor of natural frequencies, others for percentages, and others find no difference. I don't think it's possible to predict what a thorough systematic review would conclude on this question.

This study by Pighin and colleagues is done among US residents recruited via Mechanical Turk, and includes some replication of Galesic M, 2009 (a study done in Germany). The authors conclude that Galesic and colleagues' conclusion is attributable to the outcome measure they used (the "scoring artifact" referred to in the abstract here). However, their study comes to the same conclusion - better understanding with natural frequencies - when using the same outcome measure. They then applied more stringent outcome measures for "correct" answers, but the number of people scoring correct were too small to allow for any meaningful conclusion. For their two studies, as well as for Galesic M, 2009, both methodological detail and data are thin. Neither the original study nor this replication and expansion, provide "the answer" to the questions they address.

On 2016 Apr 11, Hilda Bastian commented:

The strongly declarative title of this paper makes a claim that is not supported by its contents.

The authors argue that only one study (Galesic M, 2009) has reported "a substantial benefit" of natural frequencies. That claim is not based on an up-to-date systematic review of the studies on this question. A systematic review is needed, because there are multiple studies now with varying methods, in various populations, and in relevant contexts, that need to be considered in detail.

These authors cite some studies that support their position (all in the context of treatment decisions). However, this is only a part of the relevant evidence. Among the studies not cited in this paper, there is at least one looking at medical tests (Garcia-Retamero R, 2013), others at treatments (e.g. Cuite CL, 2008, Carling CL, 2009, Knapp P, 2009 and Sinayev A, 2015), and at least one in a different field (Hoffrage U, 2015). Some find in favor of natural frequencies, others for percentages, and others find no difference. I don't think it's possible to predict what a thorough systematic review would conclude on this question.

This study by Pighin and colleagues is done among US residents recruited via Mechanical Turk, and includes some replication of Galesic M, 2009 (a study done in Germany). The authors conclude that Galesic and colleagues' conclusion is attributable to the outcome measure they used (the "scoring artifact" referred to in the abstract here). However, their study comes to the same conclusion - better understanding with natural frequencies - when using the same outcome measure. They then applied more stringent outcome measures for "correct" answers, but the number of people scoring correct were too small to allow for any meaningful conclusion. For their two studies, as well as for Galesic M, 2009, both methodological detail and data are thin. Neither the original study nor this replication and expansion, provide "the answer" to the questions they address.